{"operation":"document","citation":"15-0144","title":"Labelmaster Services — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2016-07-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"15-0144 response to Labelmaster Services concerning 171.8, 173.22, 173.24, 173.24a, 173.24b, 173.27, 175.30, 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0144.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0144.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0144","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2016/150144.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMaterials Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous\nJUL 2 5 2016\nAdministration\nMr. Robert Richard\nVice President, Regulatory and Government Services\nLabelmaster Services\n5724 N. Pulaski Road\nChicago, IL 60646\nReference No.: 15-0144\nDear Mr. Richard:\nThis is in response to your July 10, 2015 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) regarding the shipment of hazardous\nmaterials packages that have minor damage. You enclose several photographs showing\nexamples of fiberboard boxes that have minor damage, including abrasions, small holes,\ncreases, or tears in the wall board. You state that, in most cases, the damage is not significant\nand would not compromise the packaging's ability to pass applicable design qualification\ntests or to provide containment under normal conditions in transportation.\nYou also state that airlines and freight forwarders are rejecting shipments of hazardous\nmaterials packages that have minor damage in part because the HMR do not define the\nwording, \"damaged package\", making the determination of a damaged package subjective.\nIn addition, you state that the provisions of § 175.30(c)(1) effectively prohibit a hazardous\nmaterial to be carried aboard aircraft if the packaging has holes, leakage or other indication\nthat its integrity has been compromised and that the International Civil Aviation Organization\nTechnical Instructions for the Transport of Dangerous Goods (Chapter 7, 1.3.1(i)) do not\ninclude a reference to \"holes.\" Your letter seeks more detailed guidance about what\nconstitutes the point at which the \"integrity\" of a package is compromised such that it should\nnot continue in transportation in accordance with § 175.30(c)(1).\nWhether there is a \"hole,\" a \"leak,\" or some \"other indication\" concerning the potential\ncompromise of its integrity, the inspection requirement in § 175.30(c)(1) is clearly focused\non preventing the continued transportation of such a package, and the responsibility is one\nthat the HMR squarely places on the carrier.\nA \"leaking\" package is an unmistakable sign that the integrity of a package is compromised,\nso that the actual condition should always cause the carrier to prevent a package's further\nmovement in transportation. On the other hand, a \"hole\" may or may not evince a\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\ncompromise in a package's integrity. This means that there may be occasions when a carrier\ndetermines that a \"hole\" does not evidence the compromise of a package's integrity despite\nwhat is otherwise a clearly observable sign of a potential problem. This discretion is one that\nthe regulations place upon the carrier to ascertain during its inspection of the package.\nIt is the shipper's responsibility to ensure that a hazardous material is offered in accordance\nwith the applicable requirements of the HMR, including determining that the packaging or\ncontainer is an authorized packaging and that it has been manufactured, assembled and\nmarked as appropriate. See § 173.22. General packaging requirements are prescribed in\n§§ 173.24, 173.24a, and 173.24b, as well as 173.27 if transported by air. If the package\nmeets a DOT specification or UN standard, it must also satisfy the applicable performance\nrequirements for these packagings.\nA hazardous materials packaging or package that is damaged during transportation which\nresults in exposure to environmental elements, or sudden inner packaging expansion may be\nsufficiently reduced in effectiveness to no longer meet the HMR's general packaging\nrequirements. Such damage increases the possibility that the package may release the\nhazardous materials or other substances or articles it contains. Therefore, packages\ncontaining hazardous material that are impaired in a manner that indicates their internal\npackagings may be crushed or considerably damaged should be considered significantly\nreduced in structural integrity such that they are unable to protect the materials they contain\nor carry loads imposed upon them, which can result in an unsafe shipping environment. This\nshould be evaluated by the carrier on an individual per package basis.\nYour questions concerning the repair of damaged packages are paraphrased and answered as\nfollows:\nQ1. Can a fiberboard box that has been opened be closed with adhesive tape as long as it\naffords equal or greater strength as compared to the adhesive tape identified in the closure\ninstructions?\nAl. In accordance with § 173.24(f)(1), closures on packagings shall be so designed and\nclosed that under conditions (including the effects of temperature and vibration) normally\nincident to transportation there is no identifiable release of hazardous materials to the\nenvironment from the opening to which the closure is applied, and the closure is secure and\nleakproof. Closures (including gaskets or other closure components, if any) used on a\nspecification packaging must conform to all applicable requirements of the specification. See\n§ 173.24(f)(2). In accordance with § 178.2(c), a packaging manufacturer and each\nsubsequent distributor of a UN packaging must provide written instructions to customers of\nall regulatory requirements not met at time of transfer, such as instructions on how to\nproperly assemble and close a packaging (e.g., UN 4G fiberboard box). Therefore, the tape\nused to reclose a specification package that has been opened must be the type specified in the\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n3\nclosing instructions. Note that, like with all functions that are subject to the HMR, the\nperson, as defined in § 171.8, who recloses a package assumes the responsibility for doing so\ncorrectly.\nQ2. Can minor rips, tears and pinholes be repaired by placing clear adhesive tape over the\nminor damage as long as this practice does not compromise the packaging's ability to pass\nthe applicable design qualification tests or to provide appropriate containment of the\nhazardous materials under normal conditions of transportation?\nA2. Except as provided in § 178.601(g), any change to an originally produced packaging in\nstructural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness or manner of construction\nwould result in a different packaging design type and requires qualification testing. Minor\nrepairs to the package may be acceptable provided the completed package meets the\nrequirements of §§ 173.24, 173.24a, and 173.24b, as well as 173.27 if transported by air, but\nonly to the extent that the carrier's actions are in accordance with its acceptance and\ninspection responsibilities under § 175.30. If the package meets a DOT specification or UN\nstandard, it must also satisfy the applicable performance requirements.\nQ3. If a metal drum has a minor dent that does not compromise its integrity, should an\nairline reject it for shipment?\nA3. In accordance with § 175.30(c)(1), a carrier may accept packages with minor dents or\nscratches if the integrity of the package is not compromised. This also means that a carrier\nmust refuse to accept a shipment of hazardous material when its integrity has, in fact, been\ncompromised or when the carrier cannot effectively rule out that the package's integrity has\nnot been compromised by the dent. Finally, a carrier may refuse to accept a shipment of\nhazardous material that has indications that the package's integrity has been compromised.\nIn addition, a carrier may establish internal policies and practices for accepting hazardous\nmaterials for transportation.\nI hope this satisfies your inquiries. Please feel free to contact us if you need further\nassistance.\nSincerely,\nDuane A. Pfund\nInternational Standards Coordinator\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nAntonielli\n115. 30\nGoodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\nInspectin Stripments\nFrom:\nBetts, Charles (PHMSA)\n15 - 0144\nSent:\nTo:\nFriday, July 10, 2015 7:04 AM\nSubject:\nFW: Request for letter of interpretation\nHazmat Interps\nAttachments:\nRequest for LOI Rev3.docx\nPlease log and assign to a specialist for response.\nFrom: Bob Richard [mailto:BRICHARD@labelmaster.com]\nSent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:40 AM\nTo: Betts, Charles (PHMSA)\nSubject: Request for letter of interpretation\nCharles,\nPlease accept the attached letter requesting and interpretation related to minor package damage. Please have a staff\nmember send me a confirmation that the letter has ben officially logged and assigned for processing.\nBOB RICHARD\nVice President Regulatory and Government Services\nLabelmaster Services\n5724 N. Pulaski Rd.\nChicago, IL 60646\nDirect: 773-540-0837\nWeb: www.labelmasterservices.com\nEmail: brichard@labelmaster.com\nKeeping companies ahead of the dynamic and frequent changes to hazardous materials regulations.\nLABELMASTER®\nSOFTWARE\nPRODUCTS\nSERVICES\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nLABELMASTER\nSERVICES\nJuly 10, 2015\nCharles Betts, Director Standards and Rulemaking Division\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nAttn: Standards and Rulemaking Division, PHH-10\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.\nEast Building, Floor 2\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nSubject: Request for Interpretation Minor Packaging Damage\nDear Mr. Betts:\nI am writing on behalf of a client that is a shipper of hazardous materials. The client is a distributor of\nhazardous materials articles that present minimal risk in transportation. Some of the articles the client receives\nfrom its suppliers arrive in packages that have minor abrasions, tears, dents, cuts, small holes or other minor\ndamage that result from normal conditions of transportation and handling. Additionally, packages may\nexperience minor damage during handling and storage operations within the client's warehouses.\nThe client reships these hazmat articles and has been forced to repackage a significant number (at great\nexpense) prior to reshipment due to extremely conservative determinations on the part of some air carriers and\nDOT personnel. In the majority of instances, the damage is not significant and would not compromise the\npackaging's ability to pass applicable design qualification tests or to provide appropriate containment under\nnormal conditions of transportation. The client has experienced differing interpretations regarding minor\npackaging damage from carriers, DOT personnel and enforcement officers and seeks specific guidance.\nThe Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) do not include a definition of \"damaged package\". The client and\nmany hazardous materials shippers are experiencing rejections of packages with minor damage because of a\nlack of criteria in the HMR and because the determination is somewhat subjective. Additionally, the wording\nin §175.30 has resulted in unjustified rejections from airlines and freight forwarders. §175.30(c)(1) states that\nhazardous material may be carried aboard aircraft only if the packaging:\n\"(1) Has no holes, leakage or other indication that its integrity has been compromised....\"\nA small hole does not necessarily result in a compromise to the packaging's integrity.\nRepackaging costs for packages with only small holes/minor damage are significant and the amount of\npackaging material that needs to be used is inconsistent with the client's environmental initiatives. The client\nwishes to implement practical and reasonable criteria for determining when repackaging is necessary and to\nrevise employee guidance and training accordingly.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nI am attaching photos (Appendix A) of packages that have minor damage and ask your guidance on whether the\npackages meet the criteria of 175.30(c)(1). These photos were shared with PHMSA and FAA staff that attended\na Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA) Packaging Roundtable Meeting on June 8,\n2015 in Washington, DC. The general opinion of DOT staff was that the minor dents, tears, small holes,\nabrasion and other minor damage would not compromise the integrity of the packages shown in the photos.\nI am also requesting guidance on whether minor abrasion, tears or small holes can be repaired as long as the\nrepair does not compromise the packaging's ability to pass the applicable design qualification tests or to provide\nappropriate containment of the hazardous materials under normal conditions of transportation. Specifically:\nCan a fiberboard box that has been opened be closed with adhesive tape as long as it affords equal or greater\nstrength as compared to the adhesive tape identified in the closure instructions?\nCan minor rips, tears and pinholes be repaired by placing clear adhesive tape over the minor damage as long as\nthis practice does not compromise the packaging's ability to pass the applicable design qualification tests or to\nprovide appropriate containment of the hazardous materials under normal conditions of transportation?\nIf a metal drum has a small dent that does not compromise its integrity should an airline reject it for shipment?\nPlease be advised that we are also considering submitting a petition for rulemaking on behalf of several clients\nto revise the wording of 40 CFR 175.30(c)(1) as follows:\n\"(1) Has no substantial damage, leakage or other indication that its integrity has been compromised...\"\nThe comparable text in 7;1.3.1(i) of the ICAO TI does not mention holes. The ICAO text simply states that the\npackaging is not leaking and there is no indication that its integrity has been compromised. PHMSA should\nconsider revising the text in §175.30(c)(1) to remove references to holes.\nPlease let me know your response at your earliest possible convenience so that my client can implement\nappropriate packaging inspection and compliance procedures to ensure the safe transportation of their hazardous\nmaterials.\nRespectfully,\nRobert a Kil\nRobert Richard\nVice President Labelmaster Services\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nAppendix A\nUN3164, class 2 Packaging\nUN3164, class 2 Packaging\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nUN3268, Class 9 UN Packaging\nUN3268, Class 9 UN Packaging\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nUN3268, Class 9 UN Packaging\nUN3268, Class 9 UN Packaging\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nUN3268, Class 9 UN Packaging\nUN3268, Class 9 UN Packaging\n4G/Y4/8/12\nUSANCOYE\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nUN3268, Class 9 UN Packaging\nUN3268, Class 9 UN Packaging\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nUN3268, Class 9 UN Packaging\nUN3164, class 2 Packaging","truncated":false,"body_characters":14243}